* FRONTLINE will air “The Anthrax Files” on October 11, 2011: “new questions are being raised about whether Ivins really did it” … UPDATE … click ***BELOW*** for video preview

Dr. Fraser-Liggett, the FBI’s own expert, says on the preview segment …

“(if) Dr. Ivins wasn’t the perpetrator … that person is still out there”

Previously, Dr. Fraser-Liggett said …

“I was hopeful that perhaps genomics would provide sufficient amount of information to be able to track the material to its source, but I then, and have always, asserted that in no way did I ever believe that this kind of genomics-based investigation was ever going to lead to the perpetrator.”

Claire M. Fraser-Liggett is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland … previously the President and Director of The Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland.

Nicholas Wade wrote in the NYT (8/21/08) … (in 2001) … The F.B.I. decided to go back to basics and to try decoding the entire DNA sequence — some five million units — of the anthrax genome to see if some clues to its source might be developed. For this job it turned to the Institute for Genomic Research or TIGR, a leader in decoding the genomes of microbes. Its director was then Claire Fraser-Liggett, who is now at the University of Maryland. The F.B.I. asked her to form a group, with as few people as possible, to decode an anthrax genome, without telling her it was the one that had killed Mr. Stevens.

DXersaid

How is it an investigative reporting when the beautiful AUSA is allowed to have her comment about late hours go unscrutinized? Look at her footnote in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary. She mentions mice in late September and dismisses that experiment as a reason based on Pat Fellow’s conclusory say-so many years later. AUSA Rachel Lieber evidences no awareness whatsoever that the week of September 24 52 rabbits arrived and Dr. Ivins was centrally involved in that experiment. Indeed, those documents and relevant lab notebooks are being withheld. Perhaps in the rush of events and given her other concerns her attention was not drawn to the conflicting documents by Agent Montooth and his colleagues.

Sometimes when a married man has late hours, it is because he is having an affair with a beautiful co-worker. Other times, he is doing precisely what the documents Rachel is withholding show he was doing. There provably was far more sexual dysfunction — a dysfunction that provably affected office operations and led to resignation of a senior attorney — in the AUSA’s office than there ever was at Dr. Ivins’ office. If the AUSA has made no effort to correct the EBAP’s reliance on the first counselor Judith McLean, then she should know that the sexual dysfunction that caused so much turmoil in the US Attorney’s office may come out as part of a formal Congressional investigation. Just as DOJ found misconduct established in the internal emails of its office, so will a Congressional committee if the emails are not destroyed. And destroying documents should never be done if no other reason they may have already gone out the door.

DXersaid

“A look back at a landmark “60 Minutes” report: Mike Wallace’s two-part investigation into the research and development of chemical and biological warfare by the United States.

The reporting was groundbreaking, as Wallace and his producer William S. Brown became the first-ever journalists permitted to “film” at secret Defense Department installations across the country.
Forty-three years later, this report remains an eye-opener. To see the original 1968 press release from CBS News regarding this story, click here.”

DXersaid

Dr. Fraser-Liggett in the preview says that “If Dr. Ivins was not the perpetrator, that person is still out there. (Note the “if”).

Relatedly, Claire Fraser-Liggett, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and director of the University of Maryland Institute for Genome Sciences, once asked,

“What would have happened in this investigation had Dr. Hatfill not been so forceful in his response to being named a person of interest. What if he, instead of fighting back, had committed suicide because of the pressure? Would that have been the end of the investigation?”